War on Drugs - Gov't Overstepping its Bounds?

23 August 02 | Schmedlap

[Schmedlap]

A few issues, regarding the legalization of drugs that are currently illegal:

1) I have observed that many who object to the legalization of narcotics assume that legalization of private possession and use of narcotics also implies the legalization of criminal activities done under the influence of drugs. I do not understand this leap. In what way does not arresting people who use drugs in the privacy of their home imply that a police officer will just wave to a passing crack head, as he drives by at 80 miles per hour, smoking a crack pipe.

2) I have also observed that many who object to the legalization of narcotics assume that people who support legalization simply wants to use drugs - as if this matters. First off, the motivations of the proponents of legalization do nothing to alter the substance or lack thereof of their argument. But, just to address this wildly popular notion: I, for one, have no desire to use any drug that is currently illegal, nor do I hope to need or desire any drug that is legal for medicinal or recreational purposes. I rarely even drink beer. My objection to the government prohibition on certain drugs is on the grounds that what people do in the privacy of their homes is none of the government’s business, so long as it does not violate the rights of others. Whether you want to possess drugs, weapons, or beanie babies should be no concern of your neighbor, your police department, or any echelon of government, so long as it does not violate the rights of others. If you have 10 pounds of plutonium, for instance, that violates the rights of your neighbors. If you have 10 pounds of cocaine, that does not violate anybody’s rights.

3) Likewise, I do not understand why proponents of legalizing drugs take such weak stances in favor of it, such as “well, alcohol is worse for you than pot, and alcohol is legal.” This assumes that the government's actions can be justified by their probability of positively influencing your health. Evidence exists that smoking is worse for your health than alcohol, as well. Should we ban cigarettes and arrest anyone who purchases, distributes, or smokes them? Since when is it the government’s responsibility to protect a person from himself? The purpose of government is to secure our rights, by protecting private property, and attempting to safeguard us from hurting each other. In other words, government’s role is to stop a man about to commit murder, not to stop a terminally ill cancer patient about to euthanize himself.

The bottom line is that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their home is none of the government’s business, nor is it the business of you or I, so long as people do not do direct harm to one another, one another’s property, or otherwise violate one another’s rights. Neither I, nor my government, have the right to tell you that you cannot snort cocaine in your home, whether you want to do it or not. The government has the right, and the duty, to arrest you if you attempt to drive on a public road, while under the influence of a drug, while impaired visually or mentally, or even if you have not had sufficient sleep to stay awake, while driving.

I welcome thoughtful responses to this post; particularly those which refute any of the arguments above, or offer suggestions to strengthen the arguments.

[Reagan Man]

Figure it out yourself. It's real easy.

[Schmedlap]

Ok. I read this is and then came back to it a couple of days later. Much of our inability to communicate is likely due to the fact that posts are spread out over days, rather than taking place in one face-to-face discussion. Amid these lapses, I have switched back and forth from over-explaining minutia, to giving inadequate explanations of large, more important details. Some of what I have said is in the context of no government, some in the context of American government. To me it makes sense, but to someone not reading my mind or whose head does not contain my brain, it almost certainly could not make sense.
The diatribe that follows is not meant as an explanation of how civilization developed, but rather an attempt at illustrating what I have written, in a proper context.

- I define natural rights as the freedom to exercise any activity except those that initiate coercion or fraud against any individual's person or property - the only exception to this being that coercion may be initiated in self-defense against those who initiate coercion or fraud against one’s person or property.
- Imagine this setting, which I steal from Thomas Paine, "...let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest, they will then represent the first peopling of any country, or of the world."
- In this setting, suppose, in your words, "Having land as property is initially achieved by staking off the piece of it you want and keeping others off of it by use of force, or losing it to them through their use of force."
- In this setting, my land is rightfully my soveriegn part of the world - my desires, regardless of how arbitrary, are law. The one exception to this lies within the definition of natural rights above. I do not have the right to fire flaming arrows onto the adjacent property, etc.
- Now suppose the persons in this setting form a society; a grouping of people having common interests. The common interests, this early in their society's existence, would likely amount to procurement of food, water, clothing, and shelter. Unless each landowner is blessed with a piece of land that is fertile, irrigated, and inhabited by edible plants and animals, he will likely need to conduct trade with other members of society beyond those whose property border his.
- This brings about the most obvious desire for public property - local transportation. Landowners could charge for use of their land as a route to and from destinations, but for the purpose of discussion and since this has not been the case in any society that I know of, I will stick with the desire for transportation as a justification for establishing some public property.
- Before this, all land was privately owned and thus each owner was basically king, while on his land. Now a given area of land is owned by all, through mutual surrender of pieces of private property or through claiming disputed property as public or through some other means.
- The natural rights definition clearly guides the behavior of the persons, in terms of their personal interactions; don't kill or harm one another's bodies. But now that the land is jointly owned, rights in terms of land ownership seem blurred. Can I start fires where ever I want on this land, as I can on my private property? If a path is cleared as a primary means of transit to and from popular destinations, can I set up a hut in the middle of this path, thus blocking traffic?
- Public property is owned by all citizens. Therefore, all citizens have the right to establish rules for behavior on public property. Citizens have the right to use their property in any manner that they see fit, so long as they do not violate the rights of others. They have the right to exercise their arbitrary desires, so long as they do not violate the rights of others. But now competing interests can arise, rights can conflict, because the property is jointly owned. Rules need to be established to prevent and resolve such conflicts.
- Because of competing interests from which desires governing the use of property arise, co-owners of land must come to an agreement on how to use their land. In coming to an agreement, the owners willingly surrender some or all conflicting freedoms that they desire to exercise; in other words, they choose to restrain themselves from certain behaviors on, or uses of, the property.
- To maintain least violation of natural rights, the society must pass laws that ensure minimal violation of the rights of its members. Since the society lacks a government, has written no constitution, has no courts, etc, minimal violation of the rights of its members boils down to a set of rules whereby as many people as possible can enjoy exercising as many of their arbitrary desires as they want, short of doing harm to one another's bodies.
- Up to this point, there is no safeguard from tyranny of the majority. Recognizing this obvious problem, individuals in this society would likely seek a check against this power of the majority. Therefore, the society would likely decide that all laws must apply equally to all members of the society.
- Now there are limits to majority powers, defined not in terms of minority rights, but rather restricted by their own self-interests, since any law/rule must apply equally to all.
- If the public property is owned by a large number of people, it is convenient to have elected representatives to decide upon uses of the property, on the behalf of the people that they represent, so as to facilitate manageable discussion. We express our disapproval of certain uses of our property through the the votes of our legislators or referendums, whose outcomes we accept as our collective approval.
- Note that throughout these statements, the jurisdiction of the legislative body was the realm of public property, not private property.

In regards to your concern that I imply "majority owners do what they do for no better reason than that they can":

I think that this is entirely possible, but I do not foresee any danger resulting from this, due the self-interests of the people to whom the laws would apply (everyone). I believe that self-interest is a reliable check against oppressive laws being made for the sake of making laws.

You also wrote that, "They do not recognize their rights as being limited by the minority's rights..."

That is correct. Technically speaking, their rights are not limited by the minority's rights. There may be a small minority that wishes to use public land for a nudist colony, but the majority says no, and thus the nudists are denied the right to strut around nude on the public property - as is everyone else. But, those nudists can go back to their private property and strut around nude until their appendages freeze over or sunburn. So long as laws must apply equally to all, I do not understand the problem with majority powers not being defined in terms of minority rights. I think that what I suggested has an acceptable outcome in terms of a lack of tyranny from the majority.

Finally, you wrote of my arguments that, "You didn't recognize that your argument for prohibiting drunk driving is just as valid for prohibiting doing drugs."

Like you, I'm not going to sift through 160 posts to refute this. I'll just state clearly here that I do recognize that my argument for probibiting drunk driving is just as valid for prohibiting doing drugs on public property.

[Schmedlap]

"Persons and property make the sum of the objects of government." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:459, Papers 15:396

"The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:36

"A right to property is founded in our natural wants, in the means with which we are endowed to satisfy these wants, and the right to what we acquire by those means without violating the similar rights of other sensible beings." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816. ME 14:490

"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134

"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will." --Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770. FE 1:376

"Natural rights [are] the objects for the protection of which society is formed and municipal laws established." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1797. ME 9:422

"An equal application of law to every condition of man is fundamental." --Thomas Jefferson to George Hay, 1807. ME 11:341

The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it." --Thomas Jefferson to M. van der Kemp, 1812. ME 13:135

[AdamSelene235]

If you have 10 pounds of plutonium, for instance, that violates the rights of your neighbors. If you have 10 pounds of cocaine, that does not violate anybody’s rights."

Oooooooh !! Now you're going to catch flack from both sides. I have every right have 10 pounds of plutonium.

Its an alpha emitter and perfectly safe! They even put it in dive suits to keep Navy divers warm in extreme conditions.

I have nice chunk of uranium oxide under my bed for its hormetic effects and don't want to worry about radiation nazis kicking in my door.

Keep your laws off my uranium, PAL..My body, my choice.